Design Process Lab 10
Performance Test 03: Energy Optimization
For Week 10- Performance Test 3: The group had to test the chosen vehicle design and chosen software code by adjusting any modification of the AEV to achieve optimized energy efficiency and to complete all requirements in Mission Concept Review (MCR). This lab is so crucial because it helps the team members to ensure that the codes and design chose by the group used minimized energy and behaves consistently on tracks. The group had downloaded the data and plotted the graphs from each successful trial using AEV Analysis Tool to compare and brainstorm some modification that could be made to either the AEV design or the codes. The MCR had also been reviewed as the group performing the test to ensure that all the aspects had been fulfilled.
Results & Analysis
The most distinguishable differences between the codes are the first code uses the distance travelled by the AEV and the second code uses the time taken for the AEV, to reach the point. The aim is the same which is to make sure the AEV reach the destination and complete the MCR but the team tried the coding in term of two ways to observe the effectiveness of the codes. There is a little difference in performances when the team tried to use both coding. During several times of trial, the team found out that the first coding is more consistent compared to the second coding in terms of completing the MCR. The AEV completely stopped in the right places when using the first coding meanwhile the AEV is inconsistent when travelling with second code. The main issue for the first coding is the sensor on the wheels does not count the mark accurately. The team found that the sensor inconsistently counts the marks on the track and affects the position of the AEV. On the other hand, the main problem for the second coding is the time taken to complete the track is depending on the speed of the AEV. The team used low level of energy, thus it makes the inertia of the AEV to be low and the team needs to use longer time for the coding to succeed. Next, the team are concerning about the time-based coding because it can lower the amount of energy used. The team plans to use the coding in the final trial but there are many issues that need to be considered such as the in consistency of the AEV on the track and the exact time needed to stop the AEV. The energy efficiency for both coding is approximately the same. Both codes use approximately 240 Joules of energy for one complete circuit which is very satisfying. After discussing with each other, the team feels that the first coding is better compared to the coding two because it is consistent and the value of the distance can be calculated from the marks on the track. For the future considerations, the team will be more focussed on the sensor on the wheels to ensure the right marks are counted so that the AEV will be more consistent on the track. Team H’s first option will be to stop using brake function to help stop the AEV. Through multiple energy analysis, the team realized that the peak of power against time plot is when the brake function used. Thus, instead of using the brake function to help stop the AEV at designated area, the team will Phase 1/8 Phase 4/5 Phase 3/6 Phase 2/7 decrease the mark count used on position function. The team will analyse the performance using AEV Analysis Tool application and the team will also discuss about the consistency of the AEV to complete a full track run. The team will be looking to try and use the servo motor as a mean to stop the vehicle. Based on observations on the other team that use the servo motor to break the AEV, they managed to stop the AEV more consistently. Team H will first check on whether the method would comply with the rule and regulation of the AEV before proceeding to the next stop. Besides, the team will also analyse the performance of the AEV through AEV analysis and timing to finish the full track.
Figure 1: The track layout
Table 1: Table of Breakdown distances